body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 7, 2010- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Vice Mayor deHaan led the Pledge
of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(10-399) Mayor Johnson addressed the Proclamation [paragraph no. 10-403 after the
Hospital presentation [paragraph no. 10-402].
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10-400) Presentation on the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) Webster
Street Jam Festival.
Kathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, gave a brief presentation and invited
everyone to attend the Webster Street Jam Festival.
(10-401) Presentation by Commission on Disability Issues.
Disability Commission Chair Leslie Krongold gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Commissioners for the great work in the community.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Commission would hold a faire this
year.
Ms. Krongold responded in the negative; stated the undertaking was huge; the
Commission decided to have the accessible exercise program instead; the Commission
might hold a faire next year.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the accessible exercise program would be available in
October, inquire whether the program could be continued on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Krongold responded the ball would start rolling in October; stated conversations are
being initiated with gyms and exercise centers throughout the City; hopefully, gyms and
exercise centers will modify classes to meet needs and the program will be the
beginning of something more.
(10-402) Presentation by the Alameda Hospital District.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,2,"Jordan Battani, President Hospital Board, gave a brief presentation; and Debra
Stebbins, CEO Alameda Hospital, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda residents can use the primary care clinic.
Ms. Stebbins responded in the affirmative; stated the clinic operates like a private
practice; physicians are employed by the Hospital; Alameda Hospital is allowed to do
this since it is a district hospital; California is one of three states with an exemption for
corporate medical practice.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Hospital's website is linked to the City's website.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she is 99% sure
that it is, but she would check.
Councilmember Tam stated recently, the Veteran's Administration (VA) gave a
presentation to Council on plans to build a $200 million clinic at Alameda Point; inquired
whether having a VA clinic at Alameda Hospital instead of Alameda Point would be
realistic in light of losing the Kaiser contract.
Ms. Stebbins responded Alameda Hospital continues to enjoy a very good relationship
with the VA; stated that she sees the need to expand the VA clinic operation in Oakland;
expansion at Alameda Hospital would be difficult; the Hospital has the capacity to
provide VA patients with in-patient care, emergency services, and surgery; Alameda
Hospital is working with San Francisco and Palo Alto facilities on how overflow is
managed; Alameda Hospital does not have the room to meet the proposed 90,000
square foot facility at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Tam stated the City's budget is very similar to the Hospital's; inquired
how much has been saved with the [Hospital's] 5% reduction in Executive Management
pay.
Ms. Stebbins responded the 5% reduction was for all non-represented staff, including
management and executive staff; stated savings amounted to approximately $500,000.
Councilmember Tam stated there have been discussions regarding potential
partnerships between the City and Health Care District in terms of ambulance transport;
inquired what the partnerships would look like.
Ms. Stebbins responded one issue might be the ability to direct more non-critical
transports; stated her concern would be taking the City's Fire Department ambulances
out of service, which would result in the ambulances not being available for critical care
transport; an increase in rigs might be needed, which could be counterproductive.
Councilmember Tam inquired what is the total contract amount for ambulance
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,3,"transports.
Ms. Stebbins responded that she does not know; stated the cost is charged to patients,
not the hospital; the amount would be easy to get.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has suggested having a liaison sub-committee
with the Hospital Board and City Council, similar to those with the School District and
AC Transit; some items that could be discussed with the liaison sub-committee would
be: 1) off-site expansions, which would be an economic development component; 2) the
VA and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority relationship; and 3) emergency
and non-emergency transport services, including the City's franchise rights; the City's
relationship with AC Transit and School Board is valuable.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked Ms. Stebbins for the presentation; stated that she is
constantly being asked how the Hospital is doing and how its financial picture fits with
the need for seismic retrofitting; inquired how capital expenditures would be funded.
Ms. Stebbins responded the Hospital has discussed various financing options with an
advisor; stated the Hospital has very little debt; not having a long history of positive
margins and reserves complicates the ability to access capital; the Cal Mortgage
program is available for hospital financing; an initial presentation has been made to Cal
Mortgage; a formal application will be submitted in a couple of months; a presentation
will be made to the Loan Committee around December or January; Cal Mortgage tends
to be more lenient in terms of consequences because Alameda Hospital is not the only
hospital in a financially challenged situation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she hopes Council receives updates as the Hospital
moves through the process; the community is interested in the issue.
Ms. Stebbins stated several community meetings would be held; the Hospital enjoys a
very good relationship with its neighbors; the entire process will take less than a year;
that she would be glad to provide regular updates.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether State funding or grants are available for
retrofitting.
Ms. Stebbins responded in the negative; stated retrofitting is another unfunded
mandate; stated that she has had meetings with Congressman Stark regarding tapping
into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but the money cannot be used for
retrofitting.
Vice deHaan stated the Hospital losing the Kaiser contract resulted in a 14% cut;
inquired whether the Hospital settled with the nurses.
Ms. Stebbins responded the Hospital settled a four-year contract with Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) before the Kaiser contract terminated in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,4,"November; the California Nurses Association (CAN) Contract was negotiated after the
Hospital received the news about Kaiser; the Hospital has settled three union contracts:
Local 6, Local 29, and CAN; all unions agreed to a wage freeze; CAN has a three-year
wage freeze.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated costs for constructing hospital beds have gone up.
Ms. Stebbins stated construction costs have gone up at an expediential rate; seismic
retrofitting is costing the hospital industry a lot of money; hospitals that are not in any
financial difficulty are having financial challenges; the whole picture has changed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Hospital has unfunded pensions.
Ms. Stebbins responded in the negative; stated the Hospital has very complex pension
funds; some pensions are managed by the unions and a couple are at the 80% or 90%
[funded] level; two pension programs have been frozen; one is active and is funded at
the required level; northern California and Bay Area hospitals have been very generous
in other regards, but have not gotten into pension or health care funding for retirees.
Mayor Johnson stated that Ms. Stebbins is welcomed to come back on a regular basis.
(10-403) Proclamation Declaring September 25 as Coastal Clean Up Day 2010.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator.
The Public Works Coordinator stated over 2,000 volunteers have picked up 8,500
pounds of debris.
Mayor Johnson stated the spartina eradication program has had an impact on
reclaiming Bay waters.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated McDonald's is one of the biggest debris generators; a
program should be established to address the problem.
(10-404) Announcement regarding the Sunshine Task Force Workshop to be held on
September 11, 2010 at 1:00 p.m., at the Alameda Free Library, Stafford Meeting Room.
Gretchen Lipow, Sunshine Task Force Chair, gave a brief presentation and encouraged
everyone to attend the Workshop.
Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,5,"Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*10-405) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on July 20, 2010, and the
Special City Council Meeting held on July 27, 2010. Approved.
(*10-406) Ratified bills in the amount of $27,677,201.59.
(*10-407) Recommendation to Empower the City Attorney to Employ Special Legal
Counsel to Defend SCC Alameda Point, LLC, V. City of Alameda et al. Accepted.
(*10-408) Recommendation to Allocate $1,088,382 in Urban Runoff Funds and Award a
Contract in the Amount of $1,088,382, Including Contingencies, to GSE Construction for
the Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump Station, No. P.W. 02-10-06.
Accepted.
(*10-409) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,372,209, Including
Contingencies, to WR Ford for the Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 8, No.
P.W. 01-10-03. Accepted.
(*10-410) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $88,500, Including
Contingencies, to Clean Lakes, Inc., for Vegetation Management, Debris Management,
and Water Quality Monitoring for South Shore Lagoons, No. P.W. 07-10-19. Accepted.
(*10-411) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $337,472, Including
Contingencies, to Weber Tractor Service for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2010-2011,
Phase 11, No. P. W. 06-10-14. Accepted.
(*10-412) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Replacement within the City of
Alameda, No. P.W. 07-10-20. Accepted.
(*10-413) Resolution No. 14484, ""Authorizing the Interim City Manager to File an
Application for $837,000 in Federal Surface Transportation Program and/or Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funding for the City of Alameda Certain Street
Rehabilitation, No P.W. 08-10-21 (Otis Drive, Westline Drive to Willow Street),
Appropriate $108,442 in Proposition 42 Funds as the Necessary Local Match, and
Stating the Assurance to Complete the Project."" Adopted.
(*10-414) Resolution No. 14485, ""Ratifying the Public Utilities Board's Approval of the
First Amendment to Agreement for Construction, Operation, and Financing of
Combustion Turbine Project Number One and the Quitclaim Deed Form for the
Roseville Combustion Turbine Units, and Authorizing the General Manager of Alameda
Municipal Power to Execute the First Amendment and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,6,"Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be researched.
The Building Official stated that he would look into the matter; continued the
presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated getting different information from inspectors increases the need
for more inspections.
The Building Official continued the presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what a person could get for a $10,000 kitchen
remodel.
The Building Official responded the $10,000 valuation is based upon square footage;
stated the valuation is not a cost but a record keeping number and does not measure
out specifically.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the average amount of a kitchen remodel, to which the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,7,"Building Official responded approximately $150 per square foot.
Mayor Johnson inquired how Alameda fees compare to other cities.
The Building Official responded other cities do not charge based upon valuation; stated
remodels have a standard fee; continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether all the types of permits reviewed represent less than
30% of permits issued, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of permits represent the remaining 70%.
The Building Official responded improvements, furnace replacements, electrical service
changes, termite reports, residing, and windows.
Councilmember Matarrese stated window replacements, awnings, porches, and decks
have outrageous permit fees; that he would like to get more information; when he
wanted to put a pergola on the back of his house, the permit fee was three times the
cost of materials.
Vice Mayor deHaan noted the number of termite permits must be high because a permit
is required whenever a property is transferred.
The Building Official stated window permits often require a significant planning fee; staff
is looking at ways to change design review charges.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a change would prevent bootleggers.
The Building Official stated people do not pull permits if fees are too high.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff used to measure responsiveness through the [permit]
process; inquired whether staff currently has a benchmark or measuring device.
The Building Official responded over the last six months, he has been conducting an on-
line survey once a project is complete; stated responses have been overwhelmingly
positive.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to see the responses.
The Building Official stated that he would provide the information; all information is
submitted anonymously.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people are clear about what is required for a simple
permit; further inquired whether information is available on the website so contractors
know what is required for simple projects in order to avoid interpretation problems.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,8,"The Building Official responded a number of handouts are available to address specific
requirements; stated staff works very hard to ensure that interpretations are accurate
and consistent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people are assured that comments are anonymous;
stated in the past, people have been afraid of retaliation; perhaps comments should go
to a third party; inquired what percentage of people submit comments.
The Building Official responded approximately 20%; stated the survey goes through a
third party on-line survey company; that he has an open door policy.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether electricity needs to be upgraded to code when a
kitchen countertop is changed.
The Building Official responded three of the six jurisdictions he checked with require an
electrical upgrade, and three do not; stated the City requires an electrical upgrade
because new countertops usually trigger the purchase of new appliances, which could
severely overload an antiquated electrical system; the issue is a life and fire safety
matter; a couple of years ago, a Bay Street house fire was the result of an antiquated
electrical system.
Mayor Johnson stated the Bay Street house was a lot older than a number of homes in
Alameda; that she receives most complaints from Harbor Bay residents; Harbor Bay
homes are not old.
The Building Official stated an electrical upgrade would not be required if a house is
less than twenty years old because the Code has not changed; an electrical upgrade
makes sense for older homes.
The Interim City Manager inquired whether the [electrical upgrade] requirement is an
Electrical Code or Fire Code interpretation, to which the Building Official responded
Electrical Code.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a separate standard should be in place if new
appliances are not be installed; stated the issue is very irritating to people and has been
questionable for years; the issue should be reviewed.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he agrees with Mayor Johnson; the envelop is being
pushed farther than necessary; inquired whether permits have increased, to which the
Building Official responded permits have increased approximately 10% from last year.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether more people are being hired to handle the
increase.
The Interim City Manager responded temporary contract people are being used; stated
nothing has been added in this year's budget [to hire inspectors].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,9,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff is able to provide next day [inspection]
service.
The Building Official responded last year, second day inspections were about 95%;
stated staff has drifted back to approximately 75% same day inspections; more than a
two-day inspection seldom occurs.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the reserve amount.
The Interim City Manager responded the estimate for the year end is that the reserve
amount would be approximately $400,000; stated the goal is to get a minimum ninety-
day working capital.
Mayor Johnson inquired when staff would come back with [planning and building fee]
changes.
The Interim City Manager responded part two could be brought back in thirty days;
stated a window, awning, and countertop information could also be brought back.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the next presentation to include
material in the packet.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the window and interim mutton issue has been
resolved.
The Building Official responded staff is much clearer; staff would come back with
information on what can and cannot be done.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether different windows are allowed for different types of
buildings, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative.
(10-418) Urban Greening Planning Grant
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan left the dais at 9:08 p.m. and returned at 9:10 p.m.
*
Mayor Johnson stated moving forward on the matter is great; hopefully, Alameda will
become a model City.
(10-419) Citywide Records Retention and Destruction Policy
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,10,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would digitalize as much as possible; stated
the Museum has some City records; the City should put the records into the City's
digitalized records; that she does not mind destroying paper copies once records are
digitalized.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the email policy should be reviewed also; that she is not
sure whether the issue should be reviewed by the Sunshine Task Force or staff;
[electronic] storage is cheap; there is no good reason not to keep digital records and
emails.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a records company should be utilized; records
required by statute should be on microfiche because microfiche lasts 100 years;
someone with technical expertise is needed.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is focusing on inventory; right now, the issue is an
organizational issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese regarding getting
expert help; the Courthouse scans every document filed; most documents are available
almost immediately; Alameda is a little behind in its technical capacity; investments
need to be made.
The Interim City Manager stated the first step is to do something with the phones; the
money saved [from a new telephone system] can be used to reinvest in the computer
system; approximately $100,000 has been put in the budget to upgrade computers; the
City's hardware is archaic.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated digital should be at the front end; inquired whether the City
Clerk's office digitalizes documents, to which City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated things that go into the [digital] archives would not go into
storage boxes.
The City Clerk stated Council has never authorized not keeping paper files; everything
is stored as paper as well; the City Clerk's office uses microfiche also.
Mayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to digitally preserve records, not
destroy records.
The Interim City Manager continued the presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated that she agrees with Mayor Johnson; stated policy should
drive technology; the policy should be consistent with the State's email retention policy;
that she works extensively with litigation and a record retention policy that pretty much
requires that nothing be destroyed; that she would like to see the Sunshine Task Force
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,11,"advise Council on the matter; a thirty-one page proposed ordinance will be presented
this Saturday; that she would like to get policy direction from the community as well.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City should get the documents from the Museum.
Speaker: Jeff Mitchell, Alameda.
(10-420) Executive Management Compensation: Form and Process
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether each individual Department Head contract would
come to Council.
The Interim City Manager responded the form would not be a contract but would be
more of a traditional Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); stated contracts are not
used as much as before.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would be binding
on the City; stated offer letters are not contracts and are not binding on the City; City
Managers have abused some things in offer letters; contracts need to be approved by
Council; that she is glad that the Interim City Manager is bringing the matter to Council
because the proposed form would prevent abuse by City Managers and circumvention
of Council authority; inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would be
binding on the City.
The Interim City Manager responded the [Executive Management] MOU would be just
like other bargaining units' MOUs and would be binding; stated the [Executive
Management] MOU would be similar to other MOUs.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would
be brought back to Council for approval, to which the Interim City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have other options come back to
Council as an agenda item so that Council would be able to discuss the pros and cons
of a contract versus an [Executive Management] MOU and provide direction.
The Interim City Manager stated three types have been discussed: an offer letter, a
contract, or a [Executive Management] MOU.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not like the idea of claiming that an offer letter
could be binding on the City.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Interim City Manager and Department Heads would
create a document that would be applicable across the departments; the [Executive
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,12,"Management] MOU could also be called a template; the template would be brought
back to Council for review; Council would have the option of approving the template or
using some other vehicle; assuming that Council would approve the template, the
template would become the boiler plate for a City Manager to use when hiring a
Department Head; the template would be the same as other bargaining unit MOUs.
Mayor Johnson inquired how a City Manager would get from the template to deals with
a Department Head to make the template binding on the City.
The Interim City Manager responded the template would be available to a Department
Head; stated a transmittal or offer letter might be transmitted to the candidate and the
template could be attached.
Mayor Johnson stated a previous City Manager gave a Department Head a deal which
she does not think Council would have ever approved; someone could call something a
contract and binding obligation even when it is not.
The Interim City Manager stated the template would be very specific.
Councilmember Tam stated Council has discussed the issue in the past; Mayor
Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese have raised the potential of an amendment to
the City Charter; one suggested hybrid approach was to use the City of Berkeley model
where the City Manager offers a job to a Department Head, which is tentative and
subject to Council approval, and includes all terms of employment so that there is some
Council oversight; said approach is an available option in looking at a Charter
amendment.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think a Charter amendment is required
because Council has to approve a contract; a contract is a binding obligation that the
citizens of Alameda have to fulfill.
The Interim City Manager stated that she thinks in terms of a contract having a start and
end date; an offer letter, which is the least specific, offers the most customization and
opportunity for individual arrangements and negotiations.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the matter placed on
an
agenda, have the Interim City Manager provide a written analysis of what is being
proposed, and have the City Attorney's office analyze what a contract would be for an
individual who would become a Department Head, what the City would be obligated to
give the individual, and what would obligate the City.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council is going the right way; elements need to be
standardized; Council needs to have an opportunity to review various options.
Mayor Johnson stated a City Manager's verbal offers are an abuse that needs to be
prevented; having an [Executive Management] MOU may not prevent the abuse from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,13,"occurring.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a person is really hired if Council does not
appropriate the money.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Charter only gives Council, not
a City Manager, the authority to set compensation and pension benefits for any
employee; Council approves a salary range and specific benefits that can be offered to
represented employees through an MOU; Council needs, at bare minimum, to have a
standardized document approving a salary range and benefit package for Department
Heads; the standardized document would allow a City Manager to hire only within the
parameters of a compensation plan and benefit package; any past offer letters that have
not been ratified by Council are not binding on the City; that she agrees with Mayor
Johnson on said matter.
Councilmember Tam stated ratifications have been part of the budget process and have
not been very specific when it comes to Department Heads; that she would like the staff
analysis to include some discussion regarding uniformity and retroactivity; Department
Heads have different needs; work hours are different; inquired whether a car allowance
could be taken away uniformly for all Department Heads or whether the issue could be
adjusted within the template, a quasi MOU, or specified to different classifications.
The Interim City Manager responded models are available for all three concepts; the
goal is to make the template specific and less ambiguous.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-421) Resolution No. 14488, ""Appointing Madeline Deaton as a Member of the
Public Utilities Board.""
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(10-422) Recommendation to Pursue Activation of the City of Alameda's Participation in
the City of Oakland's Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) #56 in Response to Appropriate
Business Opportunities.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda is not a port or a destination center for distribution
of goods; inquired how Alameda's participation would work.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded Alameda is considered
to be part of the larger port of entry and is part of FTZ #56.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,14,"Mayor Johnson requested an explanation on taxes.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated a business would repackage
or assemble goods at a location in Alameda and export goods through the port or
Oakland airport; expensive excise taxes would be avoided because goods would not be
imported to the United States.
Mayor Johnson stated some tariffs have gone up to 600% which makes it more
economically feasible to assemble and manufacture items within the United States.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how successful Oakland has been; further inquired
whether Alameda would be in competition with Oakland; stated corridors are a concern.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded Alameda has already
received some preliminary interest; stated Alameda has land in close proximity to a port
and international airport; the activation would be another tool in the economic
development tool kit; participation could be used on an opportunistic basis.
Mayor Johnson stated participation would not just be repackaging but would be job
creation in the United States.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated Oakland wants to support
Alameda's participation because business would be brought to the port and airport.
Mayor Johnson stated Council should not assume that Alameda would be dealing with
containers going back and forth through the tube as in the past.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated the City would only
participate in the right opportunities.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue should be explored; private investment
opportunities would be available for buildings that need help; the investment would spur
jobs.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to review how the operation would work;
questioned why Oakland is not using its FTZ to the maximum; stated using interim
reuse may work extremely well; the vision would not be to warehouse at the port.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated impact assessments are
very difficult without site-specific opportunities; staff would come back to Council with
opportunities that make sense and are consistent with goals.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a fee is associated with activating
participation.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in the negative; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,15,"staff and minimal consultant time would be needed to ensure that things are done right;
the application process is straight forward because Oakland has already gone through
the more extensive process.
Councilmember Gilmore stated activation seems reasonable; staff would bring back
site-specific opportunities to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; activation does
not mean that the floodgates need to open.
Councilmember Gilmore stated community input would be needed also.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City of Oakland is in favor of Alameda's
potential activation.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the City of Oakland has
been very helpful in initial conversations; stated staff did not want to go too far out
without getting Council direction.
Mayor Johnson stated activation would present regional opportunities through jobs and
economic development.
Speakers: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda; and Alex Chen, Alameda.
Following Former Councilmember Daysog's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired
whether the City of Oakland would be in control, if activation would occur.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the City's activation
would be part of Oakland's FTZ; stated Matson Global Distribution Services operates
the general-purpose FTZ.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda would have control over what goes in
Alameda.
The Interim City Manager responded uses would belong to Alameda; stated Matson
Global Distribution Services would administer the FTZ in compliance with federal law.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated participation would be on a
site-specific basis.
Councilmember Matarrese requested verification that whatever goes into the Alameda
section of the FTZ would be controlled exclusively by Alameda within constraints of
federal law, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether participation would not be activated until a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,16,"promising opportunity would be brought to Council, to which the Deputy City Manager -
Economic Development responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Council could reject a promising opportunity, to
which the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in the affirmative.
Following Mr. Chen's comments, Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of tariff
issues that have prompted interest in FTZs.
Mr. Chen stated duty on laptop parts is 20%; duty on an assembled laptop is 255%.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether union jobs would be generated, to which Mr. Chen
responded that he does not know.
Mayor Johnson stated that she had not heard of any exemptions from [using] unions.
The Interim City Manager stated some cities have elected to establish policies in terms
of working with anyone interested in the FTZs.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with
consideration of the type of jobs that would be created to match existing City policy.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion is to pursue the activation, to which
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council would have the opportunity to review opportunities
on a case-by-case basis.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(10-423) Jon Spangler, Alameda, discussed board and commission vacancies.
(10-424) Peter Clark, Community Response Foundation, discussed the America's Cup.
The Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on the American's Cup process.
Vice Mayor deHaan requested an update.
The Interim City Manager stated the American Cup Association is in the process of
finalizing an agreement with San Francisco; an update would be provided to Council;
San Francisco has made a commitment to work with Alameda.
(10-425) Jean Sweeney, Alameda, thanked the Interim City Manager for obtaining the
Urban Greening Planning Grant; thanked the Commission on Disability Issues for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,17,"College of Alameda intersection improvement; discussed the archive documents on her
website.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to have archived documents.
(10-426) The following speakers discussed the District Attorney's letter with the decision
that there was insufficient evidence against Councilmember Tam: Jeff Mitchell,
Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Barbara Kahn, Alameda; and Bill Smith,
Alameda.
Councilmember Gilmore stated acknowledging and respecting the District Attorney's
decision and legal process is important; the City's role has been to present the results of
its investigation and have the District Attorney make a determination, which has been
done; that she would vigorously oppose spending any more tax dollars on such a
frivolous matter; everyone should settle down, take a deep breath, and reject the urge to
escalate the matter; now is not the time for further litigation or acrimony; going after
Councilmember Tam civilly appears at a minimum to be a complete waste of tax dollars
and the Court's time; learn from what has occurred and get back to doing the business
that the people of the City elected Council to do; to that end, it is really important that
citizen's know that Council's judgments will be made with their best interest at heart;
before considering any new actions on anything further relating to the matter, she will
ask, echoing some of the comments made tonight, that the City Auditor audit the books
and records relating to the matter so that the public has a clear understanding of the
amount of money expended on the matter; right now, Council does not know how much
money has been spent; secondly, she requests that outside counsel, not the firm
involved in the matter, conduct a workshop on the Brown Act for Council, staff, Boards,
Commissions, and any interested members of the public; finally, she requests the
Council to agree that the appropriate venue for dealing with the Interim City Manager
and City Attorney actions are within the context of performance reviews which have
been previously scheduled and are coming up shortly; hopefully everything can be put
behind once performance reviews are done and the Councilmembers can get back to
the work the citizens of Alameda elected them to do; in the interest of taking a deep
breath and pausing, her question to her colleagues is that she does not understand why
there is a Council meeting on Thursday to determine whether or not to file litigation; that
she does not know why there is a rush; if the meeting occurs at all, given the events and
circumstances of the case, she suggests having the meeting in open session; the public
deserves to know why and how tax dollars are being spent; individuals and attorneys
who want to push forward with the case should present the rationale for doing so in the
face of the fact that the District Attorney rendered an opinion that there is no evidence to
pursue the matter.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,18,"(10-427) Councilmember Tam stated for weeks Mayor Johnson, the Interim City
Manager, and the City Attorney have been asking the District Attorney through outside
counsel, Michael Colantuono, to expedite the investigation so that the City can get on
with its business; for the record, based on the letter that the District Attorney has sent
and the Island blog has published on its website, she learned that the City's special
counsel sent five letters of which she has only seen three along with her attorney; her
attorney has sent two; the City Attorney's office, through Mr. Colantuono, submitted a
letter practically every other week documenting issues and concerns they have with her
email and her communications; 285 pages; the District Attorney waited and reviewed
every single one in a very exhaustive way; they have come to the determination that
there is no legal or factual basis to support the allegations that the Brown Act has been
violated or that she has mishandled confidential information; asking the Council to
discuss issues of concern to the public, whether the public raises it, whether a City
business partner raises it, or whether an employee group raises it, is wholly appropriate
and is part of her responsibility as a City Councilmember; it is unfortunate that the City
issued a press release that does not seem to respect the exhaustive review and the
analysis of the District Attorney that has lasted over two months; it is also unfortunate
that they have produced a press release that distorts the District Attorney's findings that
the matter is closed.
(10-428) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands that the County is at a
very preliminary stage in discussing the potentially moving forward with Countywide
project labor agreements that would affect all cities; it might behoove the City to take a
look at the issue; that she will bring back a Council Referral for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY -SEPTEMBER 7, 2010- -7:02 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam left the dais at 10:40 p.m. and returned at 10:42
p.m.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCMENTS
(10-65 CIC) Presentation on Façade Assistance Program for fiscal year 2009-2010.
The Development Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.
Chair Johnson stated the façade grants make a big difference within the community; the
before and after pictures are unbelievable; that she wishes more money could be found
for the Program.
Commissioner Gilmore stated a lot of work has been done on Park Street and Webster
Street; a critical mass has now been reached and the faces of the streets are changing.
Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.
Commissioner deHaan stated the Façade Assistance Program has been extremely
successful; involving new proprietors in the beginning is very important.
MINUTES
(10-429 CC/10-66 CIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on
July 20, 2010, and July 27, 2010. Approved.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
1
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,20,"(10-430 CC) Recommendation to Authorize the Community Improvement Commission
of the City of Alameda to Enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with
Warmington Residential for Redevelopment of the City's Corporation Yard Located at
1616 Fortmann Way and the City's Animal Shelter Located at 1590 Fortmann Way; and
(10-67 CIC) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement by and between
the Community Improvement Commission and Warmington Residential for Redevelopment of
the City's Corporation Yard Located at 1616 Fortmann Way and the City's Animal Shelter
Located at 1590 Fortmann Way.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the project is small; inquired why the initial term of the ENA
would be eighteen months.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the timeframe is more of
an issue with the City developing a relocation study and is more for the City's benefit.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what has been learned from the SunCal ENA.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City has standard
and good faith provisions and termination dates in all ENAs; stated the project is for two
acres and up to twenty-seven units; the ENA is simple and straightforward.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated no developer is perfect, but no developer is like SunCal;
the City's relationship with SunCal totally broke down; inquired whether assurances are
in place to avoid a similar breakdown with Warmington Residential.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Residential
has a proven track record in the City and is moving forward in very difficult economic
times; stated staff feels comfortable with Warmington Residential.
The Interim Executive Director stated staff needs to assess whether moving the two
facilities [Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter] is feasible for the City; the ENA is not as
complex as the SunCal ENA.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the CIC budget includes $100,000 that would
be needed to reimburse Warmington Residential for geotechnical and environmental
testing if the project does not go through.
The Interim Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated every year, a small
amount is budgeted for studies.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the project would be subject to affordable
housing requirements, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services
responded in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
2
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,21,"Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter
relocation; the Animal Shelter relocation would cost between $1.2 million and $3 million;
the Corporation Yard relocation would be approximately $2 million; inquired where
funding would come from.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded $376,000 is budgeted for
a relocation study; stated a process would be needed to outline how the City would
successfully relocate and construct the facilities.
The Interim Executive Director stated costs would not be known until studies are
completed; the City has real estate assets that are not used to the highest, best use;
conversations need to address the fact that the Animal Shelter needs to move and the
Corporate Yard location is not logical; that she has some financing ideas.
Chair Johnson stated the entire northern waterfront is blighted; public waterway access
has been very limited.
Speaker: Andy McKinley, Grand Marina and Alameda resident.
Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. McKinley is using other property to satisfy parking
requirements for his property.
Mr. McKinley responded right now, the parking problem has no solution; stated that he
is proposing everything west of the northern extension of Paru Street be excluded.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter need to be
relocated; the area is complex; that he is not sure the ENA is the solution; that he sees
a couple of incompatibilities: the area has a full service marina and shops in the Alaska
Packers Building, which needs repair and investment; parking needed to maintain the
shops is being eaten up by development; the Boat Yard generates noise; having houses
next to a boat yard would result in a collision; mixed use sounds great in an urban
planning textbook, but somebody is going to lose at some point; the ENA could be a tool
to see what is feasible and practical; his yardstick would measure whether a true mixed
use development would work.
The Interim Executive Director inquired whether the waterfront plan states mixed use.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded mixed use is noted in the
General Plan; stated the property is zoned residential.
Chair Johnson stated staff ought to take another look at the zoning; the issue is similar
to the Catellus project.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he agrees; perhaps some retail would be needed
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
3
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,22,"instead of ship operations; that he would like to look at the matter and flush out the
$376,000 relocation study.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the proposed use could be
compatible with residential.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what options have been reviewed for the Alaska
Packers Building.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Tidelands Trust limits
uses to maritime, visitor, retail, and restaurants.
Chair Johnson stated the Alaska Packers Building should be considered in the plans for
the site.
The Interim Executive Director stated a parallel track could be initiated with the ENA;
staff could come back with two proposals.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the relocation study should
be done at the same time also.
Mr. McKinley stated Warmington Residential gave the City $100,000 to build a new
facility when property was swapped.
Commissioner Gilmore stated that she is intrigued with the proposal, which should be
reviewed; she would be more comfortable seeing more information on the Alaska
Packers Building before acting on an ENA; she would hate to get into a situation where
one problem is solved by moving the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter and
revitalizing the property only to cause difficulty for the Alaska Packers Building, which is
a City asset with restricted uses because of the Tidelands Trust; the upkeep [Alaska
Packers Building] would fall on the City by not allowing a developer to develop the
project in a financially feasible manner.
Commissioner deHaan stated looking at the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter
construction costs is important; funding streams need to be known; the worst thing
would be to get half way through the process and not have funding; that he would like to
have the matter flushed out.
Chair Johnson stated that she agrees with Commissioner deHaan; the purpose of
bringing the matter before the Commission tonight is to start looking at the issues.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he has no problem with starting the ENA with
Warmington Residential; an ENA would not allow negotiations with anyone else on the
residential portion of the project; that he does not want to go eighteen months and then
have the administrative ability to go three more months; things need to be brought back
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
4
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,23,"regarding the Alaska Packers Building; a guide of the ENA should be to protect the
Alaska Packers Building as a City asset to ensure that there would not be future
incompatibilities with a working boat yard and adjacent residences; a project labor
agreement would be needed; zoning should be reviewed to ensure compatibility; said
issues should be spelled out as ENA conditions.
Commissioner Tam stated tonight, she is not ready to craft a motion to enter into an
ENA; that she is does not have the same level of comfort as her colleagues without a
comprehensive review of relocation plans and financing; the Animal Shelter is a very
sensitive, emotional issue in the community; public comment is needed before she is
comfortable with moving forward.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would be the timeframe for bringing the matter
back; further inquired whether relocation sites and costs could not be started.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the contract to do so
[relocation study] is separate.
Commissioner Gilmore stated she would like to move forward with looking at relocation
sites and costs.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the review would take eight
months to a year.
Commissioner Gilmore stated coming back with an [revised] ENA would not take eight
months to a year.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services inquired whether Council would like
staff to come back [with the ENA] in twelve months.
Chair Johnson stated staff should get started on the relocation part.
Commissioner Tam stated certain things need to be nailed down; that she does not
know how long it would take to nail things down; the public process needs to be
transparent.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services inquired whether the Commission
wants the relocation study started or completed [before entering into the ENA].
The Interim Executive Director stated that she recommends a parallel track; a complete
relocation analysis and study with a consultant would take several months.
Chair Johnson stated that she likes an almost parallel track, suggested getting started
on the relocation part.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
5
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,24,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated some Commissioners want to
know the financial aspects, which would be pretty far along in the study.
Commissioner Tam inquired whether knowing how much the land would sell for would
be important.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded what the land is worth
versus relocation costs are two separate issues.
***
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam left the dais at 11:47 p.m. and returned at 11:50
p.m.
Commissioner deHaan stated a lot of loose ends exist; that he does not think the
Commission is ready to go forward; costs could be calculated on the back of a napkin;
the ENA does not have to be done immediately.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated concrete answers would not
be known until the relocation study is done.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the square footage of the Animal
Shelter, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff
would hire someone to answer said question.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the idea of the ENA would be to sit down with
Warmington Residential to see their valuations and what they can do to build houses in
the area; the output would be a Development Agreement (DA); the DA would need to be
compatible with uses, including the Packers Building, and would have to account for
relocating two City operations; moved approval of directing the Interim Executive
Director to come back with an updated ENA for the Commission to discuss, to define a
timeframe in the ENA for the CIC and Warmington Residential that would point to the
parallel work that has to be done exclusively, including existing operations around the
Alaska Packers Building, and to look at other rules and benefits for the City, including a
labor agreement, appropriate zoning, and all public hearings necessary to ensure that
the public knows the intent and milestones in between.
*
(10-431 CC/10-68 CIC) Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
continuing past 12:00 midnight.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
***
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
6
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,25,"Commissioner deHaan stated the Commission is not asking for a lot of detail; other
elements need to be considered in order to be successful.
Chair Johnson stated the Animal Shelter would be better off in another location.
The Interim Executive Director stated that she has recommendations on where the
Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter could go; this year's budget has funds for a very
extensive feasibility analysis for rebuilding, constructing, and relocating the Corporation
Yard and Animal Shelter; the process should not be started until the CIC knows what
the property can be sold for in order to put more cash into the deal; the Commission's
comments and Commissioner Matarrese's amendments to the ENA have seven
different components which would be put into the ENA; staff would come back regarding
getting consultants on board to start the feasibility analysis; the CIC does not have the
cash or funds to buy property and build something; the cost estimate would be based on
the type of building and landscape, as well as the physical relocation cost; staff has
other recommendations for the Commission in terms of what could happen with
Alameda Municipal Power; through an asset management strategy, the CIC could have
more than enough to pay for the Animal Shelter and approximately 50% to pay for the
Corporation Yard; a deal might be able to be struck in a DA to offset costs; the situation
is sequential.
Chair Johnson stated ensuring a benefit to the City is important in terms of the economy
of scale.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a bunch of dominos need to fall in order to
finance the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter relocation; stated the Commission has
a sense of unease because the Interim Executive Director has a clear idea of where to
move the Corporation Yard and costs; that she is not privy to the information.
The Interim Executive Director stated that she needs to have some discussion
regarding selling the property in order to validate numbers and theories; the cart is
before the horse.
Commissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan is asking for ballpark figures.
Commissioner deHaan inquired how much two acres is worth to Warmington
Residential.
Michael McClellan, Warmington Residential, responded that he does not know until
preliminary testing is done.
Commissioner deHaan inquired how much two clean acres would be worth.
Mr. McClellan responded approximately 20% of land value; stated the issue is that the
property is small, irregular, and under bay mud; that he spoke to Pennzoil about the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
7
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,26,"Shelter is not optimal for the animals; she wants a better facility.
Commissioner Tam stated Mount Trashmore is not the right place.
Commissioner deHaan stated past discussions have included taking in other districts to
make the Animal Shelter profitable.
The Interim Executive Director stated staff has looked at other options, including doing
what Berkeley has done.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:03
a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
8
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf